Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File W. 8,690, William Elliott, S.C.

SERVICE
S. b.
Elliott, William Phoebe
NUMBER
W. 8690
CONTENTS

5258
South Carolina Phoebe Elliott widow of William Rollist. who served in the Revolutionary war, as a Pr. Car. Inf.
Lt Col 1st Regt SC Art " 1 " 1st " 4 " 1st 1576 4 1st 1892 Nov 28 Rev John East History Pa West To Wilmington City
Inscribed on the Roll at the rate of 88 Dollars 33 Cents per annum, to commence on the 4th day of March, 1848.
Certificate of Pension issued the 12th day of Dec 1847 and sent to Edward Cantwell Wilmington N. Carolina.
Recorded on Roll of Pensioners under February 2, 1848, Page 310 Vol.

The United States of America State of South Carolina District of Beaufort
On this 10 day of May 1848. Personally appeared before me John M. Baker Magistrate
Mr. Phoebe Elliott widow, aged 76 years a resident of Beaufort South Carolina, who being first duly sworn according to law, Doth on her Oath make the following declaration in order to obtain the benefit of the acts of Congress of July 7 1838, entitled "an act granting half pay and pensions to certain widows" That she is the widow of William Elliott dec d formerly of Beaufort aforesaid, who was a volunteer private, in a troop of horse raised in said Beaufort or neighbourhood, that he served for awhile under Captain Edward Barnwell, that this troop belonged to the militia of South Carolina, that while so serving under arms he was present at the engagements at Jacksonborough, at Savannah River and at John's Island of that time he was severely wounded and captured on the 20 th May 1779, that on the 17 May 1781, he was confined in one of the prison ships in Charleston Harbour, and was so a prisoner 26 th Aug t 1781 see Ramsay Hist. Revoluty War insola, vol. 2. pag 542. That subsequently he was sent in a Cartel by the enemy to Yorktown to be exchanged, that on the passage he with other prisoners rose upon the crew, captured the vessel and escaped into Beaufort North Carolina, from whence after months of delay he returned to his home in South Carolina. That she calls attention to the period of his imprisonment because one of the Certificates from the Comptroller General's office of South Carolina shows a service of only about 19 months - whereas Deponent has reason to believe that her husband served under arms during the war of the Revolution two years and more.
She further declares that she was married to the said William Elliott on the 23 rd May 1787, that he died on the 8 th May 1808, that she is still his widow, and in support of her claim submits the annexed proof - Deponent saith she has not heard nor does she know of another William Elliott other than her husband having served under arms during the said Revolutionary War.

Deponent saith that no Judge resides within thirty miles of her residence, and that her present health will not permit her to travel beyond that distance to execute this declaration.
Sworn to before me on the day & year above mentioned
Phoebe Ellis
John M. Barker Magistrate

State of South Carolina Beaufort District
Personally appeared before Geo. M c Beher Esquire , Magistrate Edward Barnwell of Beaufort, planter, who maketh oath, "that he is nearly sixty four years of age, & has known William Elliott, the late husband of M c Pherson Elliott the claimant in this case, from his earliest recollection; "that he heard from his uncle Rob t Barnwell , that his nephew the said William Elliott accompanied him Rob t Barnwell , as a soldier among the troops sent from this district, by the council of safety in Charleston, under Col t Steph Bull , to Savannah & Parrysburgh , to quell some disaffected movements of traitors, in the year seventeen hundred & seventy six. "that said William Elliott was also among the troops engaged under Gen l Moultrie , with the British under Major Gardiner , in seventeen hundred & seventy nine, upon this Island of Port Royal, in which engagement, by the returns of the field officers, forty of the British were killed & wounded among them, & Major The enemy fled to their shipping in broad River, & the Americans could not pursue, as they had expended nearly all of their ammunition. This deponent saith further, "that he has heard, from his father Edw d Barnwell , & uncle Rob t Barnwell , that the said William Elliott their nephew, was taken prisoner with themselves in the engagement with the British, at Mathews plantation upon Johns Island, in seventeen hundred & seventy nine, and that this deponent has seen the scar of a very dangerous wound in the breast, shown to him by the said William Elliott, as received on that occasion; that William Elliott was among the prisoners put on board of the Prison ship, the Pack horse, in Charleston harbor, & when sent for exchange to the North, assisted in overcoming the guard on board, & running the schooner into Halifax, North Carolina, from whence, they returned home some time before the close of the war; that the said William Elliott never took protection from the British, & his name is to be found with his uncles, John, Edward, & Robert Barnwell among those, who signed a petition to Gen l Greene , that he would not permit

any injurious consequences that might accrue to them, while prisoners, to have any influence in preventing a retaliation for the murder of Col. Hayre.
This deponent further saith, he is the keeper of the Public Parish Register of this Parish, & that the following extract is a true copy therefrom, except that the dates are fully written out, of the birth, marriage, & death of said William Elliott — "William Elliott, son of William & Mary Barnwell, born July ninth seventeen hundred & sixty one, married twenty third of May, seventeen hundred & eighty seven, to Phoebe Wright & died eighth day of May Eighteen hundred & eight". and, that said Phoebe, is still his widow.
This deponent further saith, that William Phoenix, who hath made affidavit in this claim, is without exception, the most respectable colored man , he has ever known, & that he holds a high stand, as a member of the Baptist Church in this Town of Beaufort.
Sworn to & duly certified before me this 29 th day of October 1849 —
John M. Baker Mayst.
Edward Barnwell
State of South Carolina Beaufort District
It is hereby Certified that the above is the genuine Signature of John M. Baker Esquire who was at the time an acting Magistrate in and for this District Commissioned and sworn and authorized by Law to take affidavits.
Witness my hand and seal of office this 31 st day of October A.D. 1849
Wm. Townsman Jr.
(C. C. O.)

William Elliot was born July 9 th 1761. was married to Phoebe Wright May 23 d 1787 and died on the 8 th of May 1808.
I Joseph R Walker Rector of the Parish of St Helena Beaufort South Carolina say that the above is a true extract from the records of said Parish.
Jos. R. Walker
Rector of St. Helena Church Beaufort S.C.
Nov. 29 1847
Sworn to before me, the 28 th Nov 1847 Ind. M. Baker Magistrate

Rev. & 1812 War Section
W.C.S. air
February 15, 1927
Mrs. Dayton C. Atkinson 2611 E. 73rd St. Chicago, Ill.
Madam:
I have to advise you that from the papers in the Revolutionary War pension claim, W. 3690, it appears that WILLIAM ELLIOTT was born July 9, 1761, and was the son of William and Mary (her maiden name was Barnwell).
While a resident of Beaufort, South Carolina, he enlisted in 1775 or 1776 and served as a private with the South Carolina troops. During a part of the time he served under Captain Edward Barnwell (who was his uncle) and Colonel Stephen Bull. He was in an engagement at Port Royal and also at Mathews' Plantation on John's Island where he was wounded in the breast by a bayonet May 20, 1779, and was captured. On May 17, 1781, he was confined in Charleston harbor on the prison ship, "Pack Horse". While on the way to Yorktown to be exchanged the prisoners captured the crew and ran the ship into Halifax, North Carolina, and made their escape. William Elliott then returned to Beaufort, North Carolina, and joined the South Carolina troops and served until the close of the Revolution.
did not use Col. Wade Humphreys' Regt. at this was no direct evidence that said service applying to this Wm Elliott

He married May 23, 1787, Phoebe Waight.
He died May 6, 1808.
His widow, Phoebe, was allowed pension on her application executed May 10, 1848, at which time she was seventy-six years of age and was a resident of Beaufort, South Carolina.
Respectfully,
E. W. MORCAN Acting Commissioner

Department of the Interior, BUREAU OF PENSIONS,
Washington, D. C., _____, 189___
Sir
In reply to your request for a statement of the military history of William Elliott , a soldier of the Revolutionary War, you will please find below the desired information as contained in his widow's application for pension on file in this Bureau.
   DATES OF ENLISTMENT. LENGTH OF SERVICE. RANK. OFFICERS UNDER WHOM SERVICE WAS RENDERED. STATE.   CAPTAIN. COLONEL.     Mar 1776 Starmore Bull Ball Sc.  
Enlisted in March 1776 discharged finally discharged in 1781 or 82 have rendered actual service for 10 mos in the Cav & 14 mos in Inf. He served the following officers over
Battles engaged in, Port Royal Island (No 312779) Matthew's Plantation (May 29, 1779)
Residence of soldier at enlistment, not given
widow's Date of application for pension, July 10 - 48
Residence at date of application, Beaufort Sc.
Age at date of application, Born Beaufort Sc. July 9, 1761
Remarks: Her pension was allowed.
Very respectfully,
John Elliott 1211 Oct City
Commissioner.

Capt Edward Barnwell Col Stephen Ball and Capt Alexander.

BOARD OF EDUCATION CITY OF CHICAGO ENGLEWOOD HIGH SCHOOL STEWART AVENUE and SIXTY-SECOND STREET AUTOMOBILE AND ELECTRICAL DEPT.
Mr. B. C. Atkinson
Chicago Illinois 12-21-1926
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Pensions, Washington, D.C.
Dear Sir: -
May I ask for help on the Revolutionary War Records of Thomas Elliott, aide to Brig. Gen. Marion, who with Joseph Elliott Capt. were prisoners on ship "Forbay" while William Elliott was on board prison ship Schooner Pack Horse Reference M c Crady's "South Carolina in Revolution 1780-1783"
Especially interested in William Elliott. Also the record of Godlieb Zink who died in Va. 12-26-1801.
Yours truly, Mrs Dayton C. Atkinson, 2611 E. 73 rd Street, Chicago Illinois.

1921 Feb. 15 - had to Mrs. Dayton C. Atkinson
Revolution South Carolina
WIDOW, &c.
File No. 8690
Phoebe Elliott
Wid.
William Elliott
Print Rev. War
Act: Febry 22
Index - Vol. A , Page 21
[Arrangement of 1870.]

Wm Elliott (SC)
Born in Beaufort SC July 9. 1761 Son of Wm & Mary (Barnwell) Elliott when he married May 23. 1787 to Phebe Wright who applied for pension in May 1848 aged 76 years & of Beaufort He died May 8. 1808
According to the statement of the veteran's widow he may have entered the service late in 1775 but in March 1776 he was in private with his uncle Capt Edward Barnwell & went with Col Stephen Ball to a disturbance by Tories Georgetown to quiet
(A Wm Elliott is reported in a book on file as enlisting in March 1776 in the 5 th reg & served about a year but there are no means of identifying him with the one of Beaufort) He fought at Jacksborough Savannah but no date is
stated On or before 1779 he served as a horseman with Capt Alexander & was in the battle at Port Royal Island (Feb 3 1779) probably under Genl
McIntosh defeated the enemy, after which they joined Lincoln at Perryburg & was in the fight on Matthew plantation on John Island May 21. 1779 when he rec d a bayonet
wound in the back & taken prisoner In Augt 1781 he was put on board the cartel Packhorse to be exchanged at Yorktown, (Va probably) but the
Captured the vessel & carried into Halifax Harbor N.S. He escaped to & joined Genl Sumpter Brigade

8705 South Carolina Phoebe Elliott widow of William who was a Bri. Cav & Inf in the Revolution
Inscribed on the Roll at the rate of $ Dollars 33 Cents per annum, to commence on the 4th day of March, 1843.
Certificate of Pension issued the 12 th day of Dec 1849 and sent to
Edward Cartwell Wilmington North Carolina
[Acts of March 3, 1843, & June 17, 1844.]
Recorded in Book 11 Vol. 2 Page 165

In the matter of Mrs Phoebe Elliott
Wilmington N.C. and since
Septm 17. 1849.
Sir
I have the honor to inform you that upon the death of my late father P Banville Esq of Charleston, I was employed to continue the application of Mrs Phoebe Elliott, of Beaufort S.C., who claimed, through him, a pension under the Acts 3 March 1837 and 27 February 1846 for the services of her husband William Elliott of Beaufort S.C., under Genl Hampton in the War of the Revolution. —
I ask leave then, to acknowledge the letter of June 14 th last, in relation thereto. This, and the letter of 13 Nov 1848, in relation to the same case, and to which reference is made, is now before me, and the contents of both, have been carefully noted. —
It is understood from these communications, that the evidence now in file, is sufficient to establish the marriage of Phoebe and William Elliott on the 23 rd May 1787 and thereafter up to the first day of January cententhsixty and ninety four, (see Act 3 March 1837) the death of William Elliott, in 1808. — and the further fact, that one William Elliott served for ten months in Col. Hampton's Regiment of Hampton Brigade.
The difficulty, which now presents itself, is to establish satisfactorily the identity of the said William Elliott, the husband of Phoebe, of Beaufort, and the soldier of Hampton Brigade. To remove this difficulty, the affidavit of Roger Pinckney aged 78 was filed in December 1848. This witness knew William Elliott of Beaufort S.C. whose widow Phoebe, is now an applicant for a pension. He knows that the said William Elliott of Beaufort did serve under

Hampton in one of the up country Regiments, but he does not say it was Col Hampton, nor does he swear to the length of service, Hence, as I understand the Commissioner's letter of 14 th June, although Mr Pinckney's affidavit may be admitted to establish the fact of the service of W m Elliott of Beaufort under Col Hampton, it does not identify him with the particular soldier, to whom according to the Comptroller Genl's Certificate (filed on that occasion) honor for ten months service, with Col Hampton's Hampton Brigade was issued. — As so I understand, further proof yet offered, is the fact established of service, for any definite period whatever.
You are kind enough in your last letter to suggest "that" "it is possible, that the receipt in the account, upon which this indent for" "ten months duty, was issued, may show the place of residence of" "Elliott"
I have not failed to submit this suggestion to the Comptroller General of South Carolina, who has charge of these records, His reply is officially stated at No. 6. in the "Abstract" which I have the honor to enclose. The name of William Elliott occurs thirteen times upon the books of his office. It belongs to four different persons. The residence of all of them , he has been able with much labor, to fix and ascertain from the records, with the single exception of him , whose service, as a member of Hampton's Brigade, are there recorded.
It will be apparent from upon an examination of the Abstract, which he has furnished me, and which is herewith enclosed, that although we have been unable to discover the place of Elliott's residence, by reference to the records, yet these records, which contain the names of all of Hampton's men, have, through the suggestion of the Commissioner, been the means of furnishing the evidence required, in the indirect manner also explained. —

It appears further, from this "Abstract of all the entries," that there were but two persons named William Elliott, who performed personal Militia duty in S. Carolina during the war. There was, 1 st  Sumpter's W m Elliott , whose residence does not appear, and 2 d  William Elliott of the Ninety Six dist who signs his name with a mark . (see No 5.)
The other entries, refer exclusively to supplies furnished by one William Elliott of Pon Pon neck, who died in Nov r May 1779. and the William Elliott of Cheraw Pee dee a Marl Springs district, whose horse was impressed for the public service.
(3) William Elliott of Sumpter's Brigade, was neither the one, nor the other of these, who are each quite distinct, and distinguishable. He was also a man of education, and signed his own name . I think it fair therefore to presume that as there are only four of the names. 1 st W m Elliott of Pon Pon neck
2 d W m Elliott of Cheraw Pee dee a Marl Springs
3 d W m Elliott of Ninety Six district, and
4 th W m Elliott of Sumpter's Brigade, that not only in this last, the same who is spoken of by Mr Pinckney as having served with Sumpter, but that there was but one of the names in his Brigade, and consequently that William Elliott of Beaufort, and the W m Elliott to whom the Indent for service (80 Nos) issued are one and the same person. — The last link in the chain of evidence, is the production of the handwriting of W m Elliott of Beaufort. Several of his signatures have been sent me for inspection by Mr Elliott. These were forwarded Mr Black the Dept t Comptroller, for comparison with the signatures of the same individual in Columbia.
If, I think, this "Abstract of all the entries" thus proves that there was but one person named W m Elliott in Sumpter's Brigade to wit: him spoken of by Mr Pinckney, and to whom Indent for service

has issued, then the additional fact of 18 mos and 40 g service is also established, for all the officers named in the "Appoint" final period and Colonels and who certify to W. Elliott series, are members of Hampton's Brigade. This will cover the two years required by law.
Then Mr. Fox endeavored my feetly to sketch the process by which the hurt and the claimants, and the soldiers of Hampton's Brigade are identified. It is circumstantial evidence of a very striking and to me, conclusive character. I have labored to make it as clear to your mind, as to my own, and fear that I shall require more of your time, and severe examination, than can well be spared. But my chief pride as well as her necessities are enlisted in your decision, and I hope it will be favorable.
With respect, and my perfect respect
I remain
Yours truly
Edward G. Bantwell

Wilmington 10 th Octo 1859.
Sir.
Your letter of 8 th inst, reaffirming the decision made on the 26 th September in the Elliott business, has been duly received. I beg to say, in reply, that the quotation made by me, referred simply to the imprisonment of William Elliott, and was in these words only, "whether he was detained a prisoner, or exchanged she cannot say." It will be observed, upon another reference, to my letter of Octo 1 st and 29 th September, that The Abstract of the Comptroller Genl. dated 14 Sept r '49 was introduced by me, "for the special purpose of proving, from authentic records, that there are but two persons , named William Elliott, who performed personal duty ." This fact, being somewhat material, I am anxious, that it should retain the position, in this discussion, originally assigned it, as a position warranted, by the "Abstract of Issues," furnished you by the proper officer, and not, quoted by me, as a statement, taken, from Mr Elliott's declaration.
It is however, to be regretted, that any quotation at all was made. The words, ascribed by me, to Mr Elliott, do appear, it is true, in the original copy of her declaration, found among the papers, but upon a subsequent comparison of them, with the context, I was persuaded even before reading your letter, that they justify and confirm the construction placed by you, upon the whole instrument .
It is somewhat mortifying, that it should have escaped my notice, that Elliott, must have been a prisoner; for it is quite plain, that had he not been a prisoner, he could neither have been — " detained a prisoner, or exchanged ." The suggestion was made, without full examination, and being untenable, and contrary to Mr Elliott's declar-

-ratio, it is withdrawn.
I would sincerely deplore, this attempt (Mrs Elliott being a resident of Beaufort, and more distant by mail, than Wadsworth) to reconcile without Consultation, this seeming conflict of testimony, if in my deal of her success, I had given just occasion for a remark so unkind, and an insinuation so severe, as that, which in this connection, seems to suggest that Mrs Elliott's own statements are drawn from other sources, than her own bosom; and, where such borrowed light, is expressly acknowledged. I am persuaded that did the Commissioners, enjoy the privilege of her acquaintance, he would reject it, as unworthy of her character, and which, even if true, which is denied: the adjudication of her claims, did not make necessary.
The Comptroller General, having, in reply to my demand as is stated in my letter of 1 st Octbr; stated that the Accounts and receipts of Book IV, have been destroyed by fire. - it is now impossible, to "produce the 'full transcript, of all, the Indents and Accounts" now required. and therefore, unless Mrs Elliott will enable me to offer evidence of the service of her husband, from 1776 to 1779. when he was captured, or greater lenity be shown, we must be content with your decision.
In the hope that at some future day, such proof will be furnished, I beg leave to repeat the facts upon which the present claim has been made: Mrs Elliott claims that her husband the late W m Elliott of Beaufort, entered the service in 1776 or 77. in the Beaufort militia, commanded by his uncle Edward Barnwell, he served with him at Jacksonville, Savannah River, and other places; down to the 20 May 1779. when the whole command, was

cut off piece on Johns Island: here he was wounded and captured: she cannot say whether he was detained, or exchanged and afterwards recaptured, but on the 17 May 1781. he was with the Barnwells and others put aboard the Pack Horse: whence he escaped, and in 1781 joined Hampton Brigade with which he continued to serve till the end of the war: she claims to have proved by Col Pinckney's affidavit that there was, at least, but one William Elliott with Hampton, and it was Mr Elliott of Beaufort; the same fact is established by the Abstract of the Comptroller, which shows a continuous, and consecutive service, from 1781 until 1783.
It is unfortunate for her, that she cannot prove these facts, more satisfactorily, but they are nevertheless true. and I hope she may yet succeed in securing your favorable decision.
I am Sir
Very Respectfully
Yr obed servt.
Edward Banliffe
James L. Edwards Esq Washington City D.C.

Pension Agency Charleston 29 Sept 1853
Sir I herewith forward the Voucher of Mrs Phoebe Elliott a pensioner under Act 2 nd July 1848 for authority to pay the same -
I am Sir Respectfully Your Obedt Servt M c Clure Agent
S. J. Waldo Esq r Commissioner of Pensions Washington D.C.

Pension Agency Charleston 29 Sept 1851
Sir I herewith forward the Voucher of Phoebe Elliott re Pensions under Act 3 July 1848 - for authority to pay the same - I am Sir Respectfully Your Obedient M c Clachan Paymaster
J. E. Heath Esq r Commissioner of Pensions Washington D.C.

Charleston, S.C.
8 th June 1848, -
Sir,
The accompanying proof is submitted for the purpose of establishing the claim of Mrs. Phoebe Elliott to the pension money due her as the widow of W m Elliott who served as a private in the Militia of S.C. Carolina during the war of the Revolution.
She claims for the period he was a prisoner of war, in the City, and in the prisonships of the enemy - This part of her case is sustained, 1 o by her own declaration 2 o by the affidavit of Mary Markie, - 3 o by the public authentic history of the war in which W m Elliott is named by the historian Ramsay, and others, -
She also claims for the period proved by the official Certificate of the Comptroller General of South Carolina, to wit, 19 months, - as evidenced by the payment to said Elliott of the sum of £ 94 .. 0 .. 0 Sterling.
As it may perhaps facilitate this examination I respectfully subjoin a calculation in order to show that the sum of £94 - 0 - 0 as set forth in the Certificate shows, say, 19 months service.
I Remain Sir,
respectfully J. M. O'Callaghan P. Cantwell
To James L Edward Esq Commissary of Pensions Washington City
(Turnover)

I assume that out of the £94-0-0, paid for services and interest, that there was paid to W m Elliot for services £81-0-0. Because the interest on £81- for 2½ years, to wit from 1, April 1782 to 1, October 1784, is     5  13.5-0     £94-0-5-00   
Now as established in the Case of Ed d Montagu of the 10 th (a Roll March 1841) the pay of a trooper in the Revolutionary war, was 2. 10½ Sterling per day
  1 Year 6 months and 18 days at 2 10½ is say £80. 14 00   13.5..00    Add int t on same for 2½ years as above   £93. 19. 00    Ex Ca .    
This approximation is near as may be to the £94-00-00 mentioned in the Cert t of the Com te Gen t of Sol d Ca m

Referred to Mr Gantley's letter of 17 Sept. 1849.
Comptroller Genl's Office Columbia S.C. Sept. 14 th 1849.
Abstract of all the entries, in this Office, relating to the name of William Elliott together with a brief outline of the facts stated in each reference
1 Book D. William Elliott - plantation on Bon Bon Creek - Indent tape 101 died previous to 16 th May 1779 - Estate furnished supplies to the American Army for which Mrs Sabina Elliott as Executrix was paid. 2 Book A. Estate of William Elliott - supplies furnished - Indents tapes 240, 241 & 242 3 Book C. Estate of William Elliott - supplies furnished - Indent tape 96 4 Book 2. William Elliott of Cheraw, Be See or Marlborough paid for a mace impressed for state troops - no militia duty - Indent tape 303 5 Book W. William Elliott - 96 District - service since the reduction of Charleston & for a gun and horse lost in the militia service in 1781 and by whose order attested by his mark only the amt. due him was paid Charles Sullivan - Indent tape 445 6 Book M. William Elliott services as a private in Alex. Anderson's Troop, W. Hampton's Regt. Sumter's Brigade State Troops - Pay and Bounty £94 Sterling. (no place of residence stated) Indent 214 7 Book X. William Elliott - array of clothing - Special County Sumter's Brigade - (no place of residence stated) Indent 2108 8 Book I. William Elliott Jr. supplies furnished - 30 days duty as horseman under Capt. Knox and 16 as footman - (place of residence of residence not named) Indent tape 227 9 Book O. William Elliott militia duty on horseback as private in 1781 & wagon service in 1781 & 1782 being 98 Indent tape 391

days duty & 40 day wagon service - (residence not mentioned)
10 Book O.      ~ William Elliott - militia duty per Capt Joseph Colhorn's Indent & Apr 401      ~ Pay Bill commencing in 1780 & ending in 1783 being ~ 34 days on horseback & 31 days on foot - ~ (residence not mentioned)
11 Book P.      ~ William Elliott - 87 days duty as horseman in the Indent & Apr 662      ~ companies commanded by Captains Pagan, Mills ~ & Cooper in Col Lacey's Regt. 30 days as ~ Sergt under Capt Hugh McLean Col Lacey's ~ Regt - 36 days with wagon team certified ~ by Col Lacey - 47 days in Capt Hugh ~ Whiteside, Company, Col Brown's ~ Regt as footman - a gun man, saddle ~ & bridle lost in service (residence not ~ mentioned)
For Comptroller Genl. James A Black Deputy Compt Genl

1 st Exceptions to Commissioner Report of 26 th September upon the "Abstract of All the entries relating to the name" "William Elliott" furnished by the Comptroller General of S.C. in the claim of Mrs. Phoebe Elliott of Beaufort S.C.
Exception 1 st (Note: These exceptions are taken, in the order, in which they arise, upon the Report of 26 th Sept.) That the "Abstract and Synopsis," shows thirteen entries of the name; to wit, 101 (2) 240. (3) 241. (4) 242. (5) 96. (6) 303. (7) 445. (8) 214. (9) 2108. (10) 227. (11) 391. (not 39.) (12) 401. (13) 662, and not eleven only, as is stated in the Report. These entries, thirteen in number, embrace however, all the Record proof, in South Carolina, connected with the same.
Exception 2 d . That, "the first five" were not given to "Soldiers" as is stated, in the Report; nor even Nos. 101. (2) 240. (3) 96. The Abstract states, on the contrary, that the first five, were all given to Mrs. Patience Elliott (presumed to have been no soldier ) the Executrix, for Supplies furnished ; not for services performed , by deceased hus- band, before 16 May 1779. when her husband died. These entries do not prove the "service for which Phoebe Elliott claims", nor were they introduced for that purpose.
Exception 3 d . That 2108. is admissible, as evidence to show at least the fact of service, or perhaps an improper enlistment, in Sumpter Brigade, by a certain W m Elliott,
Exception 4 th . That W m Elliott of Beaufort, may be presumed to have used the "S r ," for this time only. It is thought lies in our power, to prove that he sometimes signed his name thus, by other testimony. to wit: some original letters. The objection is purely technical.
Exception 5 th . That No 39. (391) and 401. do not embrace service for the same period. "as 214" which is shown thus. (copy of the Abstract in 214) "Indent W. 214. Issued the first day of October 1784 to Mr. William Elliott" (no residence stated) "late private in Alexander's troop, Wade Hampton's Regiment" "Sumpter Brigade of State troops for Ninety four pounds sterling, Balance" "of Pay and Bounty due him for service in that troop; together with" "interest thereon from 1 st April 1782. agreeably to Resolution of Assembly" "of S.C. of eleventh March last (1784)."
1. A copy of this Resolution was filed in the Pension office by Mr. Jas. A. Black, in the case of McKenzie, and will be found to designate no one by name or residence.

It will be observed from this, that it contains, as statement of the year when the service was performed, and the Accounts which accompany the Indents of Book IV, are reported by the Comptroller, to have been burnt in Washington. It is true, that it may fairly be presumed, and the fact, for argument sake, is admitted, that the service was performed before 1 st April 1782: perhaps the account was due that day. Since interest is calculated thence. But the service was for ten months, and taking 1 st April 1782, as the terminus point, we have, June 1 st 1781, as the starting point. This calculation would still leave a broad margin of time wherein the same person named in 214 might have performed the services designated in 391, and 401, which were as follows: to wit;
 O. 391. William Elliott (no residence) 98 days, duty as horseman & foot militia, in 1781, say 6.  " " " " " 40 days " wagon service in 1781, and 1782.  O. 401. " " " 34 days horse service, in Calhoun's company, same.  " " " " " 31 days duty on foot in Calhoun's company, of same. 
The two last, were rendered, according to the "Abstract, at various periods, beginning in 1780 and ending in 1783," covering a space of three years, with 65 days, only duty in all. showing conclusively, that he was about the greater portion of the time, and attached to other commands, and removing the supposition, that "Calhoun's M c Elliott, was, in any way a distinct person, from him, who served under other Captains, in the same period, (to wit 1780-83.) in the same Brigade.  Exception 6 th
"That, the time the service covered by 662 is stated," That, there are "means at command for ascertaining, whether 662 was issued to the same as 214 or not," and first; the means of ascertaining the identity of the individual, may be found in this, that, all the officers, under whom the services charged for, in 662 were performed, were members and captains of Sumpter's Brigade, as will be seen from history: Second, the Abstract states distinctly, that, the time for which the service was paid was as follows to wit:
 87 days with Col Lacey, mounted man  30 days with Col Lacey as Sergeant, and here let me remark that this Entry explains, the declaration about the "Commission," said to have been seen by M c Elliott, in the possession of her husband. It was a warrant of sergeantcy only, that M c Elliott saw.  36 days wagon duty.  47 days private with Capt. Whitehead's company, Col Lacey's Regiment making in all, — 205 days, duty. (with Lacey, Regt. of Sumpter's Brigade) 

But the Report urges that Mrs Elliott does not claim for service under their officers. I will state in reply, that it is not to be expected that Mrs Elliott an old widow lady, should remember the names of all the different officers under whom her husband served, seventy years ago! She swears however that he was, both a horse and foot soldier, and served under "different officers," after the service under Capt. Barnwell, in 1778. Barnwell's Company was cut to pieces in 1779.
Mr Elliott does not say positively that her husband was a prisoner (see her declaration,) on the contrary, after tracing him particularly for the time he entered the service in Captain Barnwell's Company, up to the 20 th May 1779, she says, whether he was detained a prisoner, or exchanged she cannot say. The facts about the imprisonment, she gets from Ramsay, and are not given on her own authority or of her own knowledge, she was doubtless led into an error by the similarity of the names, for Mr Roger Pinckney swears positively that at and after the time of the reduction of the city of Charleston in 1780 he was serving in one of the upper Regiments, commanded by Genl. Moultrie, which he could not have been, had he been a prisoner as stated in History.
The Abstract was introduced, for the special purpose of proving from authentic records, that there were but two persons named William Elliott who after 1779 performed personal duty. Namely 1 st William Elliott of 96 th district, service at Charleston, and no doubt the prisoner alluded to in Ramsay, and William Elliott of Sumpter Brigade, of Beaufort District.
I think it impossible that there can have been more than one W m Elliott, with Sumpter, because the Indents and the Abstract show that the services upon which they were issued were all performed in the time intervening between 1780 and 1783. Had there been more than one, the aggregate of Indents would have amounted not only to more than three years, (which is not the case, since the whole amount falls a day or two short of 10 mo 202 days two years) but had there been more than one, it would likely have exceeded seven, which is a longer term than the service of Sumpter Command, and of the war. With these remarks, I again submit the case, to the indulgent consideration of the board.
It seems my hand, after a man like Roger Pinckney, (knows not only in South, but in all Carolina) attests the service of the present claimant's husband, and upon the proof above, obtained with much labour and expense, that it should fail through some technicality. Mrs Elliott is undoubtedly the wife of one of

if Rose Pinckney is to be at all kind Sumpter, gallant veteran , she is now rapidly approaching the grave, Though her last moments will not be embittered by the reflection, that the ingratitude of her country, and the failure of her just claim, there is added the damning stain of wilful perjury , upon one of the proudest and most respectable families in Carolina.
Wilmington at Carolina. September October 1 st 1849.
Edward Cantrell

Wilmington N Carolina 1 st October 1849.
Sir.
In reply to your letter of 26. in relation to Mrs. Elliott's claim, the Honorable state, that the Comptroller Genl of South Carolina date of Augt 21. last informed me that all the accounts of Book M o and receipts had been destroyed by fire in Washington, and none remained in his office. This information was given in reply to my letter forwarding certain letters of the late Mr Elliott of Beaufort, for the purpose of instituting a comparison under directions of June 14 th .
Annexed I have a list of errors and exceptions, caused in your Report, contained in the letter of 26 th ; doubtless by my inartificial and prefix statement of 17 th Sept r last for which I owe myself your kind indulgence.
Mrs Elliott's claim is founded, she desires me to say, under the Act of March 3 rd 1837. and she expects to prove nearly two years service of her husband under Genl Hampton.
A new examination of the group in connection with the annexed Exceptions will show there are but two persons of the name who performed actual duty in the war, and the William Elliott mentioned in Hargreaves Sketch of Beaufort District and Finley's Beaufort District, dated 1809. pages 590. 591. As an deceased old and highly respectable citizen of Beaufort Dist. and the husband of Mrs. Mary Elliott; was one of them. and the only person of the name in Hampton Brigade. My respectfully
Edward Cantrell

Wilmington N.C. 29 Septemr 1849.
Sir.
Before proceeding further, I respectfully pray your opinion, upon the following statement of Mrs Elliott's claim,
Your letter of 14 th June, stated the whole difficulty in the case to be, in establishing the identity of Mrs Elliott's husband, with the particular soldier, to whom Indent 214 for 10 months service, with Sumpter, was issued "
We filed in 1848, the affidavit of Roger Pinckney 78 years old. The witness swore, he knew W m Elliott of Beaufort S.C. he was the husband of the claimant, and he served in the war, with Sumpter "
It is admitted, here, is no proof of service, with Sumpter for ten months .
But the Abstract forwarded you, shows. That there were but two of the name, who did themselves, actual duty . viz
W m Elliott of "96." and he was not of Sumpter Brigade. The other of whose residence, the Comptroller Genl. says there is no evidence, but who is mentioned at 214. 2108. 227. 391. 401. 662. as having served with Sumpter, and his various Captains &c.
(R) The residence of the latter, appearing in no case of entry , is it not fair to presume, that these references all relate to the same individual ? 22? And therefore, that it could be none other , than W m Elliott of Beaufort, the husband of the applicant, who is proved to have served with Sumpter ? An answer is Respectfully Requested
by your obed servt
Edward Cantwell

Wilmington 24 November 1849.
Sir.
I am instructed by my client, Mrs. Phoebe Elliott of South Carolina, to say, very respectfully, that no answer has been received by her, or me, to the papers forwarded in her claim, on the 4 th inst.
These were supposed to contain satisfactory proof of the services of her husband, as a private soldier from 1775, to 1782, and corroborative proof, in addition to those already filed, of his service under Sumpter, down to 1783.
Her increasing age and infirmity, will be sufficient excuse, for again requesting a speedy settlement, and adjustment of her claim.
I am Sir
W. R. Kelly
Your most obedt. Servt.
Edward Gantville
Col S. L. Edwards Bore of Pensions.

Wilmington, St. Ca
21 Nov. 1849.
Sir.
Having this letter the pleasanter enclosed the affidavits of William Phoenix, and Edward Barnwell which are intended to establish the service of William Elliott from 1775 to 1781. These will no doubt remove any remaining difficulties in the establishment of the claim of Phoebe Elliott of St. Ca.
I am Sir Very Respectfully
Edward Barnwell
Ms Elliott 85.
20th Commission of Review Washington City D.C.

Wilmington 5 October 1849.
Sir.
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 30th inst. in reply to my letter of 29 th in relation to the Elliott claim.
Since the date of my letter of that date to wit upon the 1 st October, after a severe examination, during which I discovered many important errors, in the report of the 26 th (caused no doubt by my want of skill in preparing the case) I had the honour to present in a List of Exceptions, certain grounds of relief, for the presumption of identity, which I make no doubt have been quite satisfactory to the department. At least, I sincerely hope so. Pardon me for repeating them. 1 st 214: 2108: 227: 39: (391.) 401: 162. all issued for 1780 to 1783, might, and probably were, all issued to the same person, because, when the time they form, is all added , it amounts to less than two years , and had there been more than one William Elliott, a Quarters Master at the same time, it would have exceeded two years; as suppose, that, in Alexander's troops there had been two William Elliotts, and Indents, both, and the residence of each not stated, there would be proof of twenty months service , instead of often only . Now as the whole of these Indents call for but 23 months 190 , it is easy to see, that had there been only two , claiming for the same period, it would have exceeded , the three years between 1780 and 1783. and if " six or seven " as suggested by the Report, the term of service proved by W m Elliott, would have far exceeded the duration of the war. Besides, this; a careful examination of the Indents shows a consecutive service ; by which I mean, that no two Indents are issued for the same identical term of service , and thus that although the Indents are all issued dated, some of them in the same year , there is no reason, why the same person, is not entitled to both; for, the whole time in service, does in no case, exceed the year or years, in which they are thus both dated; None, then, they some bear date the same year, but the amount of service in no two, exceeding the amount of time in the year, they may have both been done by the same: eq. Captain Calhoun credits W m Elliott for service for three years, 1780. 1781. 1783, but for 65  Eighty five days only , in all

Surely; the same individual may have been 1030 days, in service in the same year , under other Commanders!! and therefore the same reason, the same person could have performed 609 days service under other of Sumpter's officers, in 1780. 1781. 1782. 1793. which is all the amount claimed for:
This, I think establishes, that there was but one, Mrs Elliott in Sumpter's Brigade.
The records being silent, (a corroborative fact of the allowance) as to the residence in all the Indents; the only proof of his residence is that furnished by Mr Nickney, who much he regarded as trifling with his conscience, and the Government, unless, he is believed to establish the service of Mrs. Phoebe Elliott, husband, in that Brigade.
This is so fortunate, that under the affidavit, and the silence of the records, none other than Mrs Elliott, the claimant, can be regarded by the department as the wife husband of Sumpter's man, and consequently unless she receive the pension no one else is entitled.
I am very Respectfully
Edward Canbale
Mrs Elliott Agt

32,681 10786
South Carolina.
Phoebe Elliott
Widow of William Elliott who was a pensioner under the Act of and who died on the 8 th May 1808. of in the State of South Carolina who was a Pri. Cav. in the Company commanded by Captain Barnwell of the commanded by S. C. in
the line for Pri. Cav. 10 mos Inf. 14 mos
Inscribed on the Roll of Charleston at the rate of 88 Dollars 33 Cents per annum, to commence on the 4 th day of March, 1836.
Certificate of Pension issued the 12 th day of Dec r 1847 and sent to Edw d Cantwell, Wilmington N. C.
Total amount, $
[Act July 7, 1838.]
Recorded by J. S. Chase Clerk, Book D Vol. 1 Page 307

Charleston S.C. 15 Feby 1849
Sir
In reference to the claim of Mrs. Phebe Elliot widow of William Elliot who served in the war of the Revolution the department wrote on the 13 Nov. '48, that it required evidence to show the identity of said William Elliot with the William Elliot who served in Hampton's Regiment as referred to in the Certificate for balance of pay and bounty of £94 issued from the office of the Comptroller of S.C. To prove which I now respectfully submit the affidavit of Roger Pinckney Esq. whose testimony had been adduced in other cases submitted to the department. The Mr. Nathl. Heyward referred to in the affidavit of Mr. Pinckney is absent from the City. — And it is hoped that the proof adduced will be deemed satisfactory.
I am Sir
very respectfully your M c ob l Servant P Cantwell
James L. Edward Esq. Commissary of Pensions Washington City

William Phoenix. Apprentice series of Mr Elliott p. 1775 to 1781.
Order to Edward Cantwell Memor. N.B.

State of South Carolina Beaufort District
On this the Magistrate in aid for said District perso- nately credible and reliable witness, who that he was the body servant of the late Robe- rt Barnwell together with the the British in the year 1775. and deponent says Elliot husband of Mrs Phoebe Elliot of this Dis- Barnwells, they belonged to the same section of in 1775: and accompanied them with the troops deponent says that while so the servant of the in the vicinity during the action in the early in this District when the Americans under Gen Major Gardiner. The Militia of this to wit Co. of John Barnwell and William Elliot was the kindred and he so continued serving with When the company was surprised by the B on Johns Island and dispersed William Ell and so was Robert Barnwell they remain reached Halifax North Carolina when William stands and believes joined General Sumpter again in the latter part of the year 1781 and died in 1808 and for the deponent with not
Sworn to & subscribed, before me on the day & year above mentioned Ind. M c Beakin "Magistrate"

26 th day of October 1849. before me John M c Baker. nally appeared William Phoenix aged 83 years on being duly sworn according to law. says on his oath at Barnwell Esq of this District; during the Revolutionary his two brothers Edward and John took up arms against that he was well acquainted with the late William District; the said William Elliott was a connection of the country and entered the service together with them under Col Stephen Bull to Georgia in March 1776. the late Robert Barnwell he was present on a plantation part. (about January or February) 1779. at Port Royal Island until Moultrie defeated the British from Savannah under Port Royal Island were mounted and under the command time present with them. his neighbours and family with them until the month of May in the same year (1779) British while encamped at the Plantation of Mr Mathews Elliott was bayoneted in the breast and was taken prisoner as prisoners in the hands of the enemy until they Elliott with others escaped and as this deponent under Borjade. deponent saw the said William Elliott he was still in the service; said William Elliott
William Phoenix

I do hereby certify that William Phoenix has been for very many years a member of the Beaufort Baptist Church & has always borne a high reputation for integrity & veracity
The above certificate } Sworn to before me } this 29 th day of Octr 1849 } John M. Baker "Magistrate"
R. W. Fuller { Pastor of Beaufort Baptist Church
State of South Carolina Beaufort District } It is hereby certified that the above is the genuine Signature of John M. Baker Esquire who was at the time an Acting Magistrate in and for this District Commissioned and sworn and authorized by Law to take affidavits.
Witness my hand and seal of Office this 31 st day of October A.D. 1849. Wm Gorman Esq.
C. C. C.

13721 June 12. 48
Thobe Elliott, formerly Widow of William.
Act of July 1838
S.C.
admitted
Pa Can 10 ~ 41.66
Pa Jny 14 46.66 588.33
Com 4 March 1836 to
to 4 March 1843 from 4 March 1843 to 4 March 1848, and from that time for life
Edward Cottrell Wilmington D.C.
Plantwell
Charleston
S.C.

Comptroller General's Office Columbia S.C. 25 March 1848
Indent Book
M No 214 — }
Issued the first of October 1784 to — Mr William Elliott, late private in Alexander's Troop W. Hampton's Regiment, Sumter's Brigade of State Troops, for Ninety four pounds Sterling being balance of pay and bounty due him for services in that Troop, together with interest thereon, from the first of April 1782 to date hereof agreeable to Resolution of General Assembly of the Eleventh of March last. £ 94. 0. 0
I do hereby certify, that the foregoing is a — correct copy taken from the records of this office — — — William C. Black Compt l Genl J t Benjamin Hart

State of South Carolina } on this 17 th day of May A.D. 1848, District of Beaufort } Personally appeared before me John M. Baker Magistrate for said District Mary Mackie widow aged 88 years. a resident of Beaufort South Carolina who being first duly sworn according to law deposeth, that she was well acquainted with the late Mr. William Elliott dec d and is acquainted with his widow, Mrs. Phoebe Elliott - that she knows them 70 years. that they always were considered amongst the most respectable people - That she remembers distinctly the fight with the British at John's Island near Charleston S.C. during the war of the Revolution, that she has distinct recollection of its being reported then, that said William Elliott was wounded & taken prisoner, and afterwards she heard of his being put on board one of the prison ships by the British, and of being sent away. - Dept s . saith that these things are familiar to her, because she knew said Mr. Elliott from his boyhood - and Dept s says she is not aware of any other William Elliott being in the service but that William Elliott herein referred to,
Sworn to before me this day and year above written I also Certify the Credibility of the affiant John M. Baker "Magistrate
Mary Mackie

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
BY HIS EXCELLENCY,
David Johnson
GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, IN AND OVER THE STATE AFORESAID.
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME.
Know Ye, That John M Baker Esqr whose signature appears to the Annexed Affidavits, is one of the Magistrates for Beaufort District in the State aforesaid, duly qualified to administer Oaths, and take depositions &c. and that the said signature John M Baker Magistrate is genuine.
THEREFORE, all due faith, credit and authority is and ought to be had and given to his proceedings and certificates as such.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused to be affixed the seal of the State, in the City of Charleston & State aforesaid the Seventh day — of June in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and Forty Eight and in the Seventy Second — year of the Independence of the United States of America.
BY THE GOVERNOR.
David Johnson
Thos. S. Jones
Deputy
SECRETARY OF STATE.

State of South Carolina } on this 28 th day of December 1848 District of Charleston } personally appeared before me the undersigned a notary public & magistrates of said District Mr Roger Penkney a Resident of Charleston aged 78 years who being first duly sworn according to law, saith that he resided in Charleston S.C. during the war of the revolution, That, he knew Mr William Elliot of Beaufort S.C. whose widow Mrs Phebe Elliot is as he is informed an applicant for a pension, - That, he deponent always heard and believes the same to be true; that, said William Elliot did serve under arms against the british in said war. in some of the up country regiments, under General Sumter Deponent was too young to carry arms then, but he distinctly remembers the british troops coming into the City to take possession, and their Sub- sequent evacuation of the same. - Deponent does not remember that said William Elliot served in any of the Charleston Companies, - and Deponent saith that he never knew but of one William Elliot being in the service, and that was the one above mentioned who belonged to Beaufort S.C. as aforesaid, - Deponent saith that he believes he is since the decease of one John Cart, the only male inhabitant of the City who was old enough to recollect the commencement of the Revolution with the exception of Mr Nathl Hayward, Roger Penkney - (turn over).

1881 June 20th ...
Sworn to and subscribed before me This 20th day of June 1881 I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original
Plaintiff Notary Public in Charleston, S.C.
Subscribed and sworn to before me This 20th day of June 1881 I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original Plaintiff Notary Public in Charleston, S.C.
Subscribed and sworn to before me This 20th day of June 1881 I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original Plaintiff Notary Public in Charleston, S.C.